The Elite Money Saving Society

redfraggle_2

DeeDee74 wrote: »

Loads of new glitchies.
Dove shower 250ml 2 for £3
£2.55 each - £1 T's
Better than free compares T's

Tresemme shampoo 500ml 2 for £5
£3.70 v £1.72
Compares T's
Under 60p for 2
Tresemme youth boost 250ml. 2 for £6 unseen multi compares to T's better than free.
Tresemme 7day conditioner 250ml
2 for £6 unseen multi
Compares to T's better than free

Thanks so much for these Dee, really appreciated. Do you think they will be safe for the rest of today?

sparklyfee

redfraggle wrote: »

Thanks so much for these Dee, really appreciated. Do you think they will be safe for the rest of today?

Really do hope so, can't get there til around 3 :eek:

DeeDee74

redfraggle wrote: »

Thanks so much for these Dee, really appreciated. Do you think they will be safe for the rest of today?

Hopefully I normally shop later so I'm sure .com has past update time & shops will be good for day but forced to go out early due to bus strike.

DeeDee74

sparklyfee wrote: »

Really do hope so, can't get there til around 3 :eek:

Maybe that's for best any shops from now will have past .com update & your be sure when you shop that they will work for rest of day.

xxlouisexx56

Thanks a lot dee dee.

I was sorting out my stash earlier and I only have 3 conditioners left :eek:

The kids have loads though.



Just asked dd2 if we could go now before we go and meet her school teacher but she said no?

Roll on her going to school next week

Will go tonight after dinner, on my own

xxlouisexx56

I also only have 3 bottles of laundry liquid left:eek:

cjj_2

Back from town, no interview outfit as you never see anything when you need something :rotfl:
However I'm home and have now had time to sort a suitable outfit ( very MSE as I already had it )
Thanks for all the advise and good luck messages. I do think the lady I rang liked the sound of me so now I've just got to give it my best shot at interview xx

ChelseaFred

DeeDee74 wrote: »

Maybe that's for best any shops from now will have past .com update & your be sure when you shop that they will work for rest of day.

DeeDee, Do we know when the next update is likely? On the old system I used to call in after work at about 2.30 am and complete the APG before 9am but has this been tested yet?
If not I will probably give it a go anyway for testing purposes (but A is 20 miles away so need to make it worthwhile)
Mmmmmmmmmmmm........

ChelseaFred:)

Savvybuyer

HILLBERN wrote: »

:wave: bye for now have a 'neutral' day

Unfortunately not, I'm start to heart-race again. Oh dear, never mind.
I've been out and now I'm back and I'm now going the full hog on this:rotfl::rotfl: - I can't stop it - I know nothing related to anything to do with this site but, then again, this thread is also used as a "talk" thread, indeed arguably more posts as talk, and boy can I talk:rotfl::rotfl: - in writing at least. I think I post this post for those who are very interested, although if you are not and don't want the discussion then just skip this one post. Sometimes I think you need to discuss things to get them off your mind or your chest - shouldda pressed "delete" but I pressed "submit" but, hey ho, that's how it goes.

This is an example of something similar to what has caused me extreme offence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqeXUnq4-1Q (Number 1)
(May not be appropriate for all people)

Bizarrely I'm completely okay with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyisfcvnJv8 (Number 2)
(Again, may not be appropriate for all people, possibly even more so than number 1, and may depend on where they happen to be and whom they happen to be around at the time)

You can tell all the words from number 1 - they may as well be saying them, except that instead it puts everything into my mind and causes me so much mental anguish (and therefore emotional distress). There are at least three other reasons why, rationally, this is more bothersome for me including the hidden nature to it makes me completely uncomfortable, when it is not truly and absolutely completely maintained. (That, itself, is part of the offence.) It has me concentrating on the words even more and makes me extremely upset.

I'm okay with number 1 whilst here at home when completely alone, except on one occasion on which it reminded me of the incidents I'd had in a particular public place (when strangers were around me - the amplified music transmits across a whole room and is like shouting it all out) and ended up getting me upset and triggering me. I've no problems with number 2, which is not the material that contains the trigger material.

I've never been able to listen to stuff like number 1 when my parents were around me at home and always switched this sort of stuff off the radio whenever it came on (I knew, from listening safely with headphones or entirely alone, to it previously of which songs to switch off). I was switching it off from 1996. Since then, I've had supposedly "safe for work" versions cause me offence at work (I was not able to switch them off and it was not voluntarily heard). They made me, at that time, mildly uncomfortable. So, er, *not* safe for work after all.

The problem I have with number 1 is that they are not saying (coincidentally) "I've got a problem", instead they are saying "I've got a" and then there is a sound and then the word "problem". My problem is with that sound and, to clarify, that is the offensive material (in places when I'm in company). It sounds so close to the word, indeed 'too close for comfort', and is an altered sound signature sound version of the word and draws my attention to it and points itself out as a problem and, therefore, is a problem. It tells everyone around me, to my complete discomfort and on one occasion embarrassment, of the word and the meaning of the material. They do not remove this material from the song - they do *not* get it to say, simply neutrally, "I've got a problem", instead they choose to broadcast it and to communicate the full (in those circumstances) offensive message in an offensive way that's telling everyone, including me, it's offensive. Sorry to go on - such a bugbear!

I found out several years after my eventual PTSD that these versions, to my surprise, were called "clean versions". That is not what I would ever describe them as - assuming that the original is "dirty" (and I can't see how objectively any word can be "dirty") this altered version is even more dirty. The "clean" version lacks a clean copy of the song and does not have clean feed. It is therefore, dirty, whilst the so-called "dirty" version, for me, is clean. I gather that "dirty" may be defined as "inappropriate to the environment" - in which case, these "clean" versions are dirty in all cases in which they have caused me offence.

They "censor" merely a sound but this does not amount to censorship of the meaning. The meaning is solely and purely the word that it means and nothing else. It is, in itself, in those public place environments of hearing it, unacceptable and the altered nature of the material admits as much and is therefore even more wrong. I feel I may have been able to ignore it had version 2 been played, but, no, version 1 has an issue with its own language, makes an issue of it and has me making an issue of it and makes an issue of it for me. The song would be censored if it were banned from being played at all.

I've always been okay with bleeping - the old school method that was used when I watched stuff as a child with my parents around and never a problem therefore for me. Except that, nowadays, bleeped material is a trigger for me. You would hear a BLEEEEEEEEPP sound which sounds completely different to the word. As children we used to imitate that by saying "BLEEEEPP"! That was acceptable. However, this is not the nature of this material (Version 1). Instead, it is something that sounds too much like the word - is tainted, associated and contaminated by it and does not amount to euphemism (euphemism is "an inoffensive way of referring..." and this is not) - it's like saying the actual word under your breath and, on another point, would be unacceptable for children to imitate it (quite apart from the serious offence it causes me). If someone in normal life did that and imitated it, it would make me want to pick up a huge frying pan and batter them over the head with it. Of course I would not - but it is so infuriating! Adds further annoyance to offence.

I've never been okay with altered sound versions or with pauses between words in the context of meaning a word. It's totally ineffective on most occasions as the original word comes across (and, indeed, is heard in this material Version 1). The reversed version (I later discovered was reversed) does not work either as it is too close - and indeed that's the worst one for me.

Actually I notice I have no heart racing now - yayy!:)

It often does not censor the meaning - except on a few occasions, on which more severe language that what the original (I later found out) contained is directly implied and comes across in my mind and causes me serious offence. It causes misunderstanding - and this won't do: misunderstanding is often a cause of offence. I've discovered the lyrics of the original songs later and, on at least ten occasions, found that the original words (e.g. the word "weed") would never have caused me any offence. The "radio" versions go up the scale for me and are more offensive. I used to be okay with bleeping - even though I knew what would have been said - but then bleeping sometimes is funnier, whereas there is no fun at all to a muted sound. They use that device - possibly, although I'm convinced it's a signature sound version (and the detail is important to me) - in a song by Lily Allen called "Not Fair". I insist that she sing "very fantastic" in that, but she does not do so. (Yes, I do require that she goes back into the studio and rerecords the song, singing wholly neutral lyrics, to make it entirely inoffensive and appropriate for playing in all circumstances and, that, until she does so, the song not be played at all until an inoffensive version is made.) I actually eventually found the original and heard it, safely, in my own home: it turned out that she said the original word in a "cheeky" way that immediately caused me to laugh. However, not so with the unsuitable-for-radio version that they call a "radio version" that is played on the radio. They manage to remove all that, whilst leaving the signature of the word present and making it solely into an offensive context. It's not funny and, when with other people around me, it is offensive.

Although I found the original funny at home, that is not necessarily how it would be in the particular public place (which is not a concert, cinema or a nightclub but instead a shop or leisure centre). Yes, even Mr A has caused me offence on one occasion, by playing a DMX song with a sexually explicit lyric in it, namely the radio version of said lyric. It is still clear and therefore explicit. I will not even repeat the partial lyric. If anything, it leaves the word (and even more problematically, the problem word) hanging in the air like a bad smell and perpetuating it far beyond what if it had been said, as well as containing an offensive reminder of the offence. I think this was shortly after I read a story about their instore radio station having never caused any listeners to complain:rotfl:. Well, that claim soon became never possible to repeat in future as the song they'd played caused me concern. It also stood out from among all the hubhub noise created by the shoppers around me.

I think, if the original of the Lily Allen song had been played in the public place, it would have had a serious impact on me. However, I am even starting to doubt whether this would be the case. This is because, on one occasion, from its own CD, presumably in error, the leisure centre had played the original unaltered version of Scissor Sisters Filthy Gorgeous and, whilst the first word was not entirely neutral, it did not go so far as to cause me actual offence. I was able to think "oh well it's a mild word anyway and maybe the people around me had missed it".

This was not so of the radio version - a version that has caused me serious offence on at least two occasions when someone put the television on and it came on a music channel when I was there with my father in the room. I got upset and left the room, and then found it impossible to explain to him why I had got upset because that itself was discussing my upset and was uncomfortable for me. The first word became an unpleasant version of itself (like saying it in a nasty way), that stood out, that to my offence made me uncomfortable with it, that I was unhappy to have the word "with me" via that method, and which I felt (and it's about feeling and offence) made entirely clear what word it meant to everyone around me. It caused the same reaction as the actual word two weeks later ended up causing (when the unaltered version was accidentally(?) played but I was physically able to forgive) but then, unlike the unaltered, where I felt "oh ignore it, it sounded mild anyway", the altered unpleasant added a tacky annoyance to the sound and the word, causing me annoyance when I was about to tip into offence - and I then did tip into offence. The second word then came across as a gaping hole, that put the full word in my mind, announced prominently and specifically to all and sundry - I felt so uncomfortable, I had to leave within 2 minutes and go home and it left me physically shaking.

As for the unaltered word, the word sounded like a particular other word, that is a neutral word, I was able to pretend to my comfort that maybe people had heard it as that and this ambiguity (even though I really knew what it was) made me comfortable. I kept at the leisure centre for a further hour. It was barely discernable - they just say the lyric in a very indistinct way to me and you can hardly hear it. So, yes, there is a song that causes me offence: Scissor Sisters Filthy/Gorgeous (radio edit) but Scissor Sisters Filthy/Gorgeous (album version), which although not totally neutral for me in that environment, found to be inoffensive (just like "watching a film", and, bizarrely again, I've always been able to watch uncensored films with my family on video - and television after 9pm - and never been caused any offence. The "9pm" bit is an arbitrary cause of my offence too - I've never yet been caused offence by television after 9pm, but only ever if certain language (depending on the word and precise circumstances) has gone out beforehand in the "safe" family-viewing space). So it's had the complete opposite effect and the creation of the concept of the watershed has ended up only ever causing me situations of offence before that 9pm time.

I know - totally illogical, especially when I am such a logical person, but then offence and emotion are completely illogical so that's entirely the point. Anyway, there was one person somewhere elsewhere in the country, I found, that complained about a certain song by T-Spoon several years ago - "it came blaring over the speakers whilst I walked through the room" - yes, it became an obsession and I made a freedom of information request to a few local authorities with council-run gyms hundreds of miles away to see if anyone else anywhere had had a similar problem. At least we be fully informed (...which is actually part of the problem with these songs). And that leisure centre removed the CD from their playlist. If that song, which would have been inoffensive to me as it does not use any - I don't want to write the word sorry as find it impossible to say as it's referring to it - not want to use any gnireaws - was taken off, then all these versions that the recording industry claims to be "clean", which do contain that thing, should be taken away as they are even more inappropriate - and, more to the point, so much more offensive to me. Anyway, thank you folks.

mrsmac10

cjj wrote: »

Yikes I've got an interview for the job..........l
Tomorow eek xx

Fantastic news Go and get that job x